Why don't LIBERALS ever understand the Constitution?

Question

It's not difficult at all to understand. For example, here's the Second Amendment:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

The only thing it says about religion is that the government is not allowed to create a state sponsored religion. It implies absolutely nothing about young women using their time to give a graduation speech and thanking Jesus as a violation.

It's the government that's restricted by the Amendment, not the people. This is the BILL OF RIGHTS not the "Bill Of What The Government Can Stop You From Doing".

If it wasn't so scary how ignorant liberals are it would be hilarious.

"spb1968" ... Oops. You got me on that, it is the First Amendment. Nice to see you didn't disagree with me, by the way.

NOTE FOR THOSE THAT DISAGREE WITH ME ON THIS ... Notice how some on your side of this issue answer my question. I can appreciate someone not agreeing with me as long as they make a good point, which several of you have.

YES, I UNDERSTAND THAT I MADE A TYPO AND THAT IT'S THE FIRST AMENDMENT NOT THE SECOND. BIG FREAKIN DEAL.

"dinodino" ... at least you asked a fair and reasonable question. Personally, I couldn't care less is someone wanted to thank Allah in their speech. Doesn't have any impact on me at all, it's their speech.

Answer 1

I think both parties are turning a blind eye to the bill of rights. Our republican appointed supreme court ruled that we don't have the right to private property if a city can make more tax revenue by seizing it with eminent domain. Bush stated publically that he would have signed the Brady bill extension has the congress passed it. Federal troops (FEMA) confiscated guns in New Orleans during the aftermath of Katrina from law abiding citizens.

And lets not forget that the patriot act basically guts the 4th amendment, even the new head of the CIA Negroponte was caught on tape claiming the 4th amendment didn't require anything more then reasonable suspicion. No wonder the Bush administration is so busy spying on all our phone calls.

Liberals and Republicans are both ignoring our constitution.

Answer 2

First things first... and that is the First Amendment you are talking of sonny boy. The Second Amendment is the right to bear arms blah blah.. Liberals have it all wrong huh? At least they know to count.

But anyways, since you invoked legalities and nuances, let's go through what you quoted word by word. "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion".. does not say which religion though, huh?
So if one young woman thanks Jesus, I guess it will be ok for another woman to thank the Buddha, or another to thank Mohammed or another to thank Rah, or Zarathustra (however you spell that), and so on..
However, no one really makes an issue out of it if someone thanks Jesus. But if you imply that the government allow only Jesus to be the one who is eligible to receive all the thanks, then it is an indirect promotion of Christianity.

The point here is the government cannot favor one religion over another. The law has to be the same for all religions. If you allow prayer in school, you have to allow Christian prayer, Muslim prayer, Hindu prayer, Buddhist prayer, Jewish prayer... and so ad infinitum. And everyone must have equal rights. OR just don't allow any prayer at all.
Intelligent design, and creationism, is a christian concept. I am sure Islam has its own version of creation, and Hinduism does too, and Budhhism and etc.. So if you teach intelligent design, you must also teach all the theories of creation from every religion. OR don't teach any of it.

But otherwise I see your point, a woman thanking Jesus is no big deal. I am sure someone will step forth to thank Lucifer as well.

Answer 3

Why must you stoop to the idiotic "why do all liberals..." phrase

I have no problem if someone thanks god in a graduation speech and personally I don't believe that someone was stopped from doing that. Unless you can provide a credible link I would say you are full of crap. This is a typical Bill O'Reilly tactic.

Well, I read the story. You left out the part that she made reference to the bible and christ several times and did not merely "thank god" . So the problem is that she brought up a specific religion which I agree is inappropriate. How would you feel about this if a person thanked "Allah" and made references to the Koran?

Answer 4

We understand the constitution obviously far better than you.

First, I assume you have no issue with a Muslem thanking Allah, Mohamad and praising his Holy warrior on earth Bin Laden at a graduation. Yes, he is a Mullah, otherwise he could not have declared Jihad.

Second, read the history of England from 1500 to 1725 and you'll get the drift of the founding fathers intent, they were, after all born as Englishmen. (The English civil war was between Episcopals and Prebyterians for starters, but you can read it yourself.)

Surprise! Most of the world's population are not Christians. As everybody is immigrating here to supply business with cheap labor to fund conservative contributions to the RNC, not everybody here is Christian either. They get offended when somebody mentions Jesus and not Mohammad, Budda, Confusious, Brahman, their ancestors or whatever deity to whom they pray. That First amendment thing applies to them as well.

And what Christian sect, then takes precident? Catholic, Othodox, (Greek or Russian), Lutheran, Episcopal, Angican, Presbyterian, Baptist, Mormon, Seventh Day Adventist, Jehovah's Witness, Christian Scientist and on and on.

Therefore, when perople begin to tout their deity above others, in government buildings, public places, and every place else it then sactifies Christianity above other religions. Please do not go that the US is a Christian founded country, because it was not. Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Jefferson, George Washington, James Madison, were at best agnostic, but polite enough to shut up about their beliefs, which was part of that English tradition of the times as a backlash to the English Civil War noted above.

Why doesn't the free speech of the Chinese disident, Cindy Sheehan, CIA agents, all wisked away for free speech bother you? Why does the physical assault of peace protesters petitioning the government by capital police raise you ire? Or is the First amendment just about religion for you.

The liberals understand freedom is for everybody, not just a Bund of Neocon National Socialists and their twisted view of reality. When you complain about the abridgement of freedoms of those with differing viewpoints, then you have earned the right to ask such a question.

Answer 5

tradition is no reason to continue doing something stupid. if the constitution doesn't protect people from religious bigotry, that doesn't mean people shouldn't be protected from religious bigotry; it means the constitution should be changed.

you give an example of a woman mentioning jesus in her graduation speech. here are some realistic, actually serious scenarios: raped women being told that the health of a month-old fetus is more important than their own, two men or two women who dearly love each other being told that their love isn't as good as that of a heterosexual couple, arrogant bigots at a pto meeting screaming that god should be taught in science classes.

i don't care if there are exploitable limitations in the first amendment of the constitution. i don't care how the phrase "separation of church and state" may have originated. i don't care how many of america's founders may have been christians. i definitely do not care what the earliest u.s. citizens may have had in mind when they began the country. intelligent people do not care about these things; they care about doing what is rational, not doing what has been done or sanctioned before.

Answer 6

Wasn't this decided time and again by the Supreme Court?

Maybe you should blame them?

American court battles over separation of Church and State -

1947, first case concerning separation of church and state; supporting busing for children to private religious schools and declaring that states were required to provide the same guarantees of religious freedom as the federal government

1948, banning religious instruction in public schools

1952, allowing religious instruction off school property during regular school hours

1962, banning teacher-led prayer from public schools

1963, banning Bible-reading and the recital of the Lord's Prayer in public schools

1973, allowing state funding for textbooks and teachers' salaries in religious schools; creating the Lemon test

1987, declared the Creation Act invalid, which had mandated the teaching of Creation if Evolution was taught

1989, banning religious displays depicting only one religion

1992, banning prayers given by clergy as a part of an official public school graduation ceremony.

It is the First Amendment that you cite FYI...

Answer 7

I think I have the answer to your question.

Liberals want everything to be perfect. In some part of their misguided little hearts, they really believe they are doing what's right. They believe that a perfect, and perfectly just and equitable society can be created if only they could pass a few more laws. Liberals, decade after decade, mistakenly believe they're just a few laws short of perfection.

However, they don't understand that they're only addressing the resultant problems, not the causes. Take public education. I hate to say it, but the average kid from Europe is better in math and science than the typical American student. Why? One of the biggest reasons is classroom discipline. I have Slovak friend who was invited to teach High School in New York. He refers to these unruly students as his "zoo kids".

I have often joked that, if conservatives were completely in charge, American kids would wind up being pathetic dancers, but they'd all be a whiz in core subjects like math and science, as good as or better than a computer geek in Bangalore, India.

How do liberals approach public education? Throw more money at it. Don't require standardized tests. Don't give teachers the authority they need to maintain discipline in the class.

I saw the video clip of the girl trying to give her commencement address. This girl believes she owes her success to a higher power. The Declaration of Independence mentions "the creator". The Constitution is supposed to protect freedom OF religion, not freedom FROM religion. This girl was not trying to make converts.

Answer 8

I suppose I can get on board with you here, provided it works both ways. Pretend for a second I'm still in High School and am about to give a Valedictorian speech to a graduating class with a handful of fundimentalist Christians as fellow grads...

I'm sure you, and said fundimentalist Christians, won't mind if I begin my valediction with: "Let us all offer a moment of prayer to the King of the true gods, Zeus..."

Why do I suspect this would cause a massive uproar?

Seems to me it's best to just keep God out of public schools altogether. I don't have a problem with students starting bible study clubs or whatnot, but when someone's giving a speach that is supposed to represent EVERYONE in the class (such as a valedictorian speach at graduation), it's probably best, and fairest, to keep God out of it.

Answer 9

I'm a liberal who understand the Constitution and has no problem with free speech or religion. Why must all Conservatives make generalizations about a whole group of people? Why are all the Conservatives on Yahoo Answers such fascists? Seriously there is no middle ground with most of them. Liberal isn't a dirty word it doesn't imply someones intelligence. Get over it all ready.

Answer 10

Second Amendment? That sounds an awful lot like the First Amendment to me.